1995 (3) TMI 255 - HC - Central Excise

Issues Involved:

1. Challenge to the Order of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Trichy.
2. Challenge to the Order of the Tribunal regarding Pre-deposit Conditions.
3. Allegations of Bias and Lack of Independence in Adjudication.
4. Impact of Acquittal in Criminal Proceedings on Adjudication Proceedings.
5. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 amidst Pending Appeals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Order of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Trichy:

The petitioner challenged the order dated 30-11-1989 by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Trichy, which ordered the confiscation of gold and imposed penalties under the Customs Act, 1962, and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The petitioner argued that the Collector's order was biased and violated the principles of natural justice. The High Court rejected this contention, stating that the plea of bias had no merit and the adjudicating authority acted within its jurisdiction. It was noted that the petitioner had already invoked the appellate remedy, and thus, the writ petition challenging the same order was not maintainable.

2. Challenge to the Order of the Tribunal regarding Pre-deposit Conditions:

The petitioners challenged the Tribunal's order dated 4-5-1990, which required a pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs under the Customs Act and Rs. 50,000 under the Gold (Control) Act as a condition for hearing the appeal on merits. The High Court found no patent error or perversity in the Tribunal's order and upheld the conditional pre-deposit requirements. However, considering the pendency of the writ petitions, the Court granted the petitioners four weeks to comply with the Tribunal's order.

3. Allegations of Bias and Lack of Independence in Adjudication:

The petitioners contended that the authorities, including the Collector and the Tribunal, were biased due to their prior involvement in the case, including the detention order. The High Court dismissed this argument, stating that the mere involvement of authorities in different stages of the proceedings under various enactments does not constitute bias. The Court emphasized that the doctrine of bias, if applicable, would yield to the principle of necessity, allowing the authorities to perform their statutory duties.

4. Impact of Acquittal in Criminal Proceedings on Adjudication Proceedings:

The petitioners argued that their acquittal in the criminal case (C.C. No. 76 of 1990) should absolve them from the adjudication proceedings. The High Court rejected this argument, stating that the objectives and nature of criminal and adjudication proceedings are distinct. An acquittal in criminal proceedings does not preclude the authorities from pursuing adjudication for confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act.

5. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 amidst Pending Appeals:

The petitioners sought to invoke the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, despite having filed appeals before the Tribunal. The High Court held that having already invoked the appellate remedy, the petitioners could not simultaneously seek relief under Article 226. The Court emphasized that the existence of an alternative remedy, especially when already pursued, precludes the invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction unless there are exceptional circumstances like a challenge to the constitutional validity of the law.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the orders of the Collector and the Tribunal. The Court granted the petitioners an additional four weeks to comply with the Tribunal's pre-deposit conditions to facilitate the hearing of their appeals on merits. The allegations of bias, the impact of criminal acquittal on adjudication, and the jurisdictional challenge under Article 226 were all found to be without merit.

← Previous Next →